(1) Ms. Miller is in jail for declining to testify about her conversations with Lewis Libby; the WaPo told us this on July 16, although they waffle sometimes.

(2) There was apparently a face-to-face meeting between Libby and Miller on July 8, so in addition to a conversation, there may (or may not) be a document involved. The document may have been shown by Libby to Miller, or vice versa. Since the document is mentioned in the subpoena, and Libby has testified, we are inclined to think there is something to this, since who else would know?

(3) Ms. Miller is stuck on the question of a personal, credible, uncoerced waiver. Mr. Waas presents both views (Miller intransigent / Libby uncooperative), but in my humble right-wing opinion, he gives too much play to the "Libby uncooperative" theory. It is not up to Libby's attorneys to open private negotiations with Ms. Miller's team about the circumstances under which she will testify - folks would have good reason to scream "Collusion!"

On the other hand, if Fitzgerald orders Libby to negotiate and/or oversees the effort, any resulting deal may (Miller might argue) be viewed as coerced. A conundrum. But let's note four things:

(a) Libby and Fitzgerald have managed to work out deals with four other reporters;

(b) no one has shown evidence that Libby is declining to cooperate with Fitzgerald; and

(c) no one has offered any evidence that Miller is reaching out and looking for a deal.

Adam Liptak, who reports on legal affairs for The
Times, stated to NPR's Terry Gross on August 2: "Judy and her lawyers
have declined to answer the question of whether they have done anything
at all to contact the source and try to obtain a satisfactory waiver"
that would permit her to break confidentiality and testify before the
grand jury.]

(d) folks have suggested motives (book deal, reputational rehab) for Ms. Miller to play first-amendment martyr. (And Arianna breaks news - the Times may do an expose on Miller, to avoid being scooped!) As Fitzgerald noted in one of his filings, a woman who spent time as an embedded reporter in the Iraqi desert may not be afraid of four months in jail.

(4) Murray Waas, in an aside, clears Tim Russert of passing the information about Ms. Plame to Libby. Since he has nothing in quotes, we fear that he has fallen prey to the Isikoff trap of recycling the too-specific Aug 2004 NBC press release without paying attention to the nuances. This was reported in Aug 2004:

Russert told Fitzgerald that he did not know Plame’s name or that she
was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to
Libby, it said.

And here is what Mr. Liptak of the Times got when he tried to update the story this July:

Mr. Russert's testimony last August provides intriguing clues. A
statement issued by NBC at the time suggests that Mr. Libby had told
Mr. Fitzgerald that he had heard about Ms. Wilson from Mr. Russert.

According to the statement, lawyers for Mr. Russert and Mr.
Fitzgerald reached an agreement under which Mr. Fitzgerald questioned
Mr. Russert only about Mr. Russert's end of a conversation in early
July 2003 with Mr. Libby. That would be an unusual way to go about
pursuing a leak inquiry, but it is consistent with an attempt to try to
establish that Mr. Russert provided information to Mr. Libby.

Mr. Russert, however, according to the NBC statement, said "he did
not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and that
he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby." Indeed, the
statement said, Mr. Russert first learned the information from Mr.
Novak's column.

A spokeswoman for NBC declined to elaborate on the statement yesterday.

Well, fine, but did Russert tell Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and was involved in sending him on the trip? No name, no "operative" - and no comment from NBC.

Until a reporter gets something specific and in quotes, we should hold off on clearing Mr. Russert. (And did it happen on "Meet the Press" today? Harry Shearer says it did not.)

And I would love to ask Mr. Waas about this, if his contact info were available. I don't see it at his blog.

Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief
of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first
learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of
Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of
former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson,
one person said. Russert has testified before Fitzgerald that he
didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.

Emphasis added. Too specific. And why do we need leaks from Russo-philic NBC Weasels to wriggle him off the hook? Let the man speak!

UPDATE 2: The Anonymous Liberal wants to know why we aren't hearing more (or any!) "Don't blame me, it's her fault" leaks from Libby or his camp. Good question. A possibility - as usual, the press has moved on and Libby has drawn little heat, so riding out this stalemate may be a winning play. That said, we thank Murray Waas for the kind words and learn that Congressman John Conyers is trying to create some heat for Libby. Without coercing him, of course.

Do you think the public differentiated between the various phrases (that "immediate threat" meant something totally and completely different than "imminent threat")? Yes or no.

"you said "No one" thought Iraq was more dangerous, and I gave you a quote where David Kay said that he did!"

Wrong. Kay never said Iraq was more dangerous. I know you'd rather ignore his use of the word "potentially," but he did use it. Or can't you see the difference between these two sentences?:

1. "A person is informed about X."
2. "A person has the potential to be informed about X."

Not the same thing. A country headed by a madman with no WMD is NOT more dangerous than a country headed by a madman with WMD.
Kay never said what you claimed. But this is ridiculous (and f'ing tedious).

In closing, I'll retract the "uninformed" statement against you, if only because I've spent the last day "informing" you. Your "potential" has been fulfilled!

Ahem. I'd ask you to drop it but I'm afraid I'd be crushed by the massive importance of your dispute. Saddam scard the hell out of a lot of people, you less than some. Why weren't you afraid of him?
=======================================

Wait, weren't you the one saying we should be less stringent with words? Now you want to be specific with them again? Which I guess is back to your original request that we be very specific, before your request that we be less specific?

And yes, I think the difference between more dangerous and potentially more dangerous is pretty neglible within a conversation about potential events and scenarios in the future. Like I said on the 26th, the shorter the time frame the bigger the difference in more dangerous and potentially more dangerous. The longer the time frame the less important the difference is.

This is not rocket science, Jim. When in a hole stop digging.

"Kay never said what you claimed."

I quoted Kay precisely plenty of times. Here you go again, taking one sentence, that does not reflect the rest of the conversation, and screaming up and down about it like a little girl. This is why threads with you go on forever. The conversation was about "potential" and now you're focusing on a sentence that didn't use the word. Petty.

" if only because I've spent the last day "informing" you."

I don't know, Jim. It seems like you're trying to take away information to narrow the field so can call yourself "right". Other people are trying to add information. When they do you say it's "lame".

You're a little kid. You don't know when things are debatable and where people can disagree, and when things are true or false. All you want to do is puff out your chest, asking "yes or no" questions like it's about being you being right instead of the actual answer to the damn question.

You used to be a valid voice here and now you're just silly.

I stand by what I write. And anyone can look at your posts and see that they're petty, inconsistent, and about YOU and what you think of other people and not the actual content or analysis.

It's like I'm talking to my nephew and he kicks and screams and wants to be "right".

"asking "yes or no" questions like it's about being you being right instead of the actual answer to the damn question."

Does that mean you refuse to answer the simple question? Because depending on your answer to the question, yes, I'd be right (again).

"like a little girl."

So you have problems with little girls? I get the sense you're trying to call me a feminine child as a way to discredit me without actually responding to my question.

"I think the difference between more dangerous and potentially more dangerous is pretty neglible within a conversation about potential events and scenarios in the future."

Even when said quote took place AFTER the invasion, when we knew proof-positive that Saddam wasn't a threat to his immediate neighbors, much less the U.S.? How could he be more dangerous than we thought he was in 2003 (which was the original retarded point, the one the irrelevant Kay quote didn't address)?

"Here you go again, taking one sentence, that does not reflect the rest of the conversation,"

All you ever do when presented with a quote is say, "You took it out of context. You've changed the meaning completely. Completely!" without ever explaining yourself. Well, you either say that, or "Oh, I was wrong about that after all."

"You used to be a valid voice here and now you're just silly."

News to me. All I ever been called on this site is anti-American, pro-Saddam, and likened to a Nazi-lover from almost the very first day I started posting (hi kim!), with not a single person ever objecting on my behalf. Certinaly not you. Now you're telling me I've fallen. How does a pro-Saddam, anti-American, Nazi-lover get lower or sillier?

"nd anyone can look at your posts and see that they're ... about YOU and what you think of other people and not the actual content or analysis."

Really. Well, then, tell me about me. I know for a fact I've never spoken about myself. You're telling me I'm a little girl, I'm like your nephew, I jump up and down screaming, I'm egotistical, I have low self-esteem, and that I've been kicked in the nuts -- yet I'M the one guilty of name-calling? ha ha

Other people can read our exchange and come to their own conclusion, and that's their business. If they want to see your complaints of being called a little girl kind of girlish itself, that is their concern.

I have two things I want to write, the second of which is more important.

First, I want to make clear that I was arguing my points in a good-faith manner and was sincere. I stand by everything I wrote related to substance.

With that said (and this is my second point), I would like to acknowledge that I took things too far. I usually try to calibrate my response to people based on how they treat others. If they're a-holes, I'm one right back at them. If they're friendly, so am I. With you, my calibration was apparently off. At some point, it became apparent that I struck a nerve with you aside from what we were arguing about. THat was unintentional. The problem, however, is that once I realized I struck a nerve, I didn't let up. I became a troll to you. While I don't have a second thought being troll-like towards others (like Machos and kim, who earn and apparently like such responses), I do have second thoughts doing that to you. That was wrong. You didn't deserve that, and I apologize.

I withdraw the derogatory things I said about you. Seriously.

Truce?

P.S. And in the spirit of this post, I would like to second Syl's post above mine. Well said.

CECIL: "the available intelligence suggested the WMD threat was fully formed and getting worse."

These conclusions relied on a very skewed and selective reading of "the available intelligence."

"Especially including the main source for decisionmakers, the NIE"

This is a good opportunity to notice an important example of doubletalk (not necessarily from you personally, but from your side). The claim is often made that various "decisionmakers" (such as Congress) had the same intelligence as Bush, and therefore should share the blame with him. Not so. The NIE (especially the earlier, unclassified version) concealed and distorted many things. Many in congress who made decisions based on the earlier NIE (or even the later one) did not have the benefit of contrary information which Bush et al had available to them but did not highlight or share.

Speaking of this, I notice that of course yet again you steadfastly avoid acknowledging or commenting on the very remarkable differences between the two versions of the NIE.

"It's hard to credit the argument that the Administration should have concluded Iraq was not a WMD threat whilst holding the definitve CIA product, which has as its first bullet ... "

I realize you'd like to pretend that this "definitve CIA product" was a clear and faithful summary of a large, complex picture. We now understand it was anything but that. It is a highly flawed document created in a great hurry in the context of a highly political environment. We also now understand Bush was not helpless with regard to seeing a broader and more correct picture. We understand that any blinders he wore at the time (with regard to only paying attention to the highly flawed NIE, rather than taking into account a mountain of potentially contrary information being produced by the IC) were blinders he put on in a voluntary and deliberate manner.

And by the way, to ostensibly reach the conclusion that Iraq was "a WMD threat" was not necessarily a sufficient basis to decide that it was crucial to chase out the inspectors on the exact day that we did so.

"each of the after-action reviews concluded that waiting would have resulted in Saddam with reconstituted WMD programs."

Passively waiting and doing nothing would probably have allowed such a result, sooner or later. But there was a vast continuum of options between, on the one hand, passively waiting and doing nothing, as compared with, on the other hand, invasion and occupation at the moment we did, in the manner we did. Our leaders had a duty to balance the threat against that full array of options (especially because there were certainly options that would not have required imposing tragedy on thousands of American families). Instead, they exaggerated the urgency of the threat and successfully sold the mistaken idea that only one option was available. That's a big problem.

By the way, speaking of choices, prewar we had a wide range of choices available to us. By choosing war, and by making so many blunders in his conduct of the war, Bush has put us in a situation where we have no good choices anymore.

By the way, speaking of waiting, we at least should have waited until our troops had proper equipment. There is something terribly wrong when we can affort to lose track of hundreds of tons of cash, but our soldiers have to beg for donations. I see lots of yellow magnets, though. Big sacrifice, buying one of those.

"Hence you're choosing the course of action which the experts say will lead to Saddam with fully-functional WMD."

Nice job drastically oversimplifying things by suggesting that waiting three more days, weeks or months would have inevitably led to all our worst nightmares coming true. Or by suggesting that sitting on our hands and doing nothing was the only alternative to war, occupation, and 15,000 Americans dead or wounded.

By the way, it's remarkable how quickly we decided that Saddam was such a huge threat, since recently certain important Americans had been perfectly happy to do business with him. Then again, I guess everyone has to make a living.

(And it's fair for me to use the word "recently" this way, since folks here are quick to defend Bush for describing 1999 as "recently.")

"when making the 'trigger-pulling' decision, policy makers have to work with the available (imperfect) data"

You like wrapping yourself in the NIE, but we now know that the policy-makers at the top had lots of other contrary information "available" to them, if they had been politically inclined to take it into consideration.

"One could hardly expect an intelligence service to give a precise evaluation of the 'immediacy' of a threat they'd never even seen."

True. Which is exactly why it was highly dishonest of our leaders to describe the threat in precise, certain and immediate terms, which they did over and over again. Numerous such examples are documented here (pdf).

"the apparent assumption that an 'immediate' threat is required for a valid casus belli"

This distinction is sort of beside the point, because our leaders did in fact suggest that the threat was immediate and imminent.

"If we're in agreement that Iraq having WMD programs is a valid reason to invade"

We're not in agreement about that. By the way, I recall that you've shown signs (citations available upon request) of not understanding the difference between simple words such as "program" and "weapon." And you seem to be doing it again. Bush didn't hype the war by only telling us about "programs." Bush hyped the war by telling us that he was sure that Saddam had massive stockpiles tucked under his arm, ready to go at a moment's notice. Big difference.

The way you glide back and forth between "weapons" and "programs" reminds me of Bush's own famous weasel-words on this subject: "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." As Eric Alterman said (quoting a reader): "If the bill collector calls, I will inform him that I have a checkbook which is evidence of possible intent to develop bill-paying programs. That should satisfy him."

"I see little evidence that waiting would have led to a better result."

You've shown no evidence that waiting three days, weeks or months would have presented an intolerable risk.

There's little doubt that waiting would have underlined what inspectors were already reporting: they were finding nothing (even though we had claimed we knew where the WMD was hidden, and we were telling the inspectors where to look, and Saddam was providing open access to all requested sites). Therefore it's easy to understand why Bush could not allow inspections to continue. This is especially clear from DSM ("wrongfoot"), which suggests that Bush had been hoping/assuming that Saddam was not going to admit the inspectors to begin with.

It's almost funny that Bush later said (more than once) "he wouldn't let them in," as if by saying this Bush could rewrite the history to more closely suit what Bush had been assuming was going to happen.

"In fact (except for one faux pas by Ari Fleischer), Administration officials were very careful to avoid even using the word 'imminent.'"

KIM: "I suspect that Saddam, like Hitler's end days belief in a 'secret weapon' altering American and British resolve, expected a Deus ex Machina political solution to allow him to persist in his evil reign, ane from a machine he had labored, and spent, to build."

It's possible that this is what Saddam "expected." However, we had a variety of means at our disposal, well short of full invasion and occupation, to keep him from getting what he "expected." To pretend otherwise is to suffer from a terrible lack of imagination.

The fact that Saddam was dishonest with us is no surprise, and is also no excuse for us to make poor decisions. The fact that our leaders were so dishonest with us is indeed a surprise, and it did in fact lead to very poor decisions. That's a big problem.

"We had conflicting intelligence to match."

It's true that intel was giving us mixed signals. Trouble is, that's not what our leaders were telling us. They were repeatedly expressing the threat as a matter of certainty, not as a matter of "conflicting intelligence."

"After 9/11 we realized we no longer had the luxury of sitting back, keeping an eye on Saddam, and waiting for something to happen."

After 9/11 we should have realized we didn't have the luxury of letting the real culprit escape so we could turn our attention to a target that had nothing to do with 9/11.

"The entire region was a dysfunctional mess and had to be dealt with one way or another."

"Dysfunctional mess" is a pretty good description of what we've created in Iraq. And I bet the rest of the region just can't wait until it's their turn "to be dealt with one way or another." Oddly enough, certain folks in that region have decided that preemptively they need to deal with us "one way or another." I wonder where they could possibly have gotten the idea that preemptive strikes that result in large civilian casualties are a perfectly OK thing to do?

In any case, all this has a lot to do with the fact that most Americans (by a margin of more than two to one) are now awake to the reality that the war has made us less safe, not more safe.

"The Saddam situation had to be resolved."

We're interested in knowing how you feel about this particular approach to "the Saddam situation."

"(1) was unrealistic because there was no way to prove he was both clean and had dropped all intentions of creating havoc in the M.E. or against his named enemy, America."

Let us know how we should react when a democratically elected government in Iraq decides (with its pal Iran) to create "havoc in the M.E." and against its "named enemy, America." Especially when the same Iraqi army we are now training and equipping is then used against US interests. I guess it wouldn't be the first time we did our enemies the favor of arming them.

"his prior use of WMD"

What a darn shame that we were patting him on the back while he was doing this. And guess who showed up in person to do the patting!

"But he was not an imminent threat.... until we made known our intentions ... he was not an imminent threat until we threatened him"

What a remarkable admission. So the war became inevitable as a result of our deciding to go to war. Nice catch-22. Sort of like how we're obligated to stay in Iraq in order to clean up the mess that we created as a result of deciding to show up there.

"At that point it could be realistically assumed that he became an immediate threat to us and would do whatever possible to prevent our actions"

It does seem to be case that he decided to "do whatever possible to prevent our actions." This took the form of him allowing unrestricted inspections. To bad we decided to behave as it he wasn't doing this.

"The existence or not of WMDs before invasion was and is only a side issue."

That's true only if you ignore the fact that WMD was the key method used to sell the war.

"Saddam ... had funded and set up an insurgency to fight us after the invasion."

Of course. And Saddam exerted mind control on us so we would fail to guard his arsenals. Instead they were thoroughly looted and as result our enemies are extremely well-armed.

By the way, do you have a shred of evidence to support that assertion? I realize that many of the fighters are ex-Baath. But that's not the same as saying explicitly that Saddam "funded and set up an insurgency"

"You're showing willful ignorance by ASSUMING the sanctions would last and Saddam would be kept in his box. When you drop that ASSUMPTION, the entire picture changes and your arguments become meaningless."

You're showing willful ignorance by ASSUMING the sanctions would not last and Saddam would not be kept in his box. When you drop that ASSUMPTION, the entire picture changes and your arguments become meaningless.

"The ONLY thing we were wrong about is that Saddam didn't have stockpiles of WMD and didn't have an active nuclear program."

What a darn shame that "the ONLY thing we were wrong about" was the main justification for the war.

"[the assumption that] Saddam had no ties to terrorism and wouldn't in the future"

Since you're terribly concerned about ties to terrorism, I'm curious how you feel about matters such as these, these, these, these and these.

"Inspectors would be allowed to come and go as they pleased."

How odd that that's exactly what the inspectors were doing until the moment we chased them out.

You said this: "I challenge jbg to produce the exact statement where Bush says we'll find those weapons in those quantities."

I think you're getting into some quite pointless hair-splitting. Of course Bush never plainly said "this is exactly what we will find." And I didn't claim he plainly said "this is exactly what we will find." I said "this is what Bush _suggested_ we were going to find" (emphasis added). And in fact that's exactly what Bush et al did. And if you look at the context and the way the "suggesting" was done, a great deal of exactitude and certainty was communicated. For example, Cheney said "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." More of that sort of thing can be found in many places, such as here.

So yes, no one ever plainly said (to pick one example) "we are 100% sure we will find exactly 29,984 chemical munitions." But when numbers are expressed with that kind of precision, it creates the impression that the folks throwing those numbers around actually know what they're talking about. They didn't.

By the way, all the claims listed above, including all the numbers cited, came out of either Bush's mouth or Powell's mouth (or possibly both).

"Now I am sure these weapons and these quantities were mentioned as something we could find, or that Iraq may have as much of these weapons as mentioned, but no claim by Bush that we'd find these weapons in these quantities."

Sorry, but that sounds like doubletalk to me. You're hanging your hat on the difference between "this is what we _might_ find" and "this is what we _will_ find." That's weak. If I say "we have a wide variety of strong evidence giving us very good reason to believe that in Sponge's basement we _might_ find the decomposed and sexually abused remains of several dozen missing children," I'm still making a highly inflammatory, libelous and inappropriate statement, even though instead of saying "we _will_ find" I hide behind the fig leaf of "we _might_ find."

"I challenge him to admit he should never have used quotation marks to suggest Bush said this, that to do so was dishonest."

The claim I made is that Bush suggested we would find all these things. I stand by that claim. I challenge you to apologize for suggesting that I posted bogus information, because I didn't.

It's quite interesting that "45 minutes" doesn't qualify as "imminent," especially given that "1999" somehow qualifies as "recently" (of course I'm talking about one of the 16 famous words). I guess rightys have a highly elastic concept of time.

"nor would Bush have stated the opposite in the State of the Union address"

I think you're claiming that Bush et al made it very clear they felt the threat was not imminent. You've provided exactly one quote to support that. Are there more? If not, I think you've got your forest-and-trees analogy backward.

"we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about" (link)

Sorry to confuse you with the facts.

"The important thing is that Iraq isn't supporting terror any more"

The important thing is that now Iraq is more of a terrorist training ground (at least according to those commies at the CIA) than it ever was, and probably more than it ever would have been under Saddam. In other words, one of our worst fears became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

BORIS: "So there must have been a UN resolution authorizing it ??? No ???"

Let us know if Bush is waiting for a UN resolution before he feels like he can go get OBL (since Goss has suggested we know OBL's in Pakistan). Maybe Bush is waiting for some kind of permission slip.

"top secret memo made available by Iraq's interim government which explicitly linked Saddam's regime to Mohammed Atta"

You must be joking. This was decisively discredited long ago.

"Some claim that Atta was in Florida the whole summer"

It's not just that "some claim that Atta was in Florida the whole summer." It's that FBI records prove that he could not have been at the event described in the "top secret memo."

"Saddam and Osama wouldn't work together because one's a secular dictator and the other's a religious fanatic and of course everybody knows those two types don't get along."

Despite your facetiousness, your statement is true. This is another area where our inept and violent meddling has created exactly what we were afraid of: "in some cases US officials have seen evidence of secular Sunni nationalists and Baathists cooperating with the most extreme Islamists." In other words, our false claims in this regard (that Saddam's people were aligned with OBL's people) have turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"How many of the CIA leaks in 2003 (or any year you please) help Bush & Co? Name them, please."

The pro-war folks in the CIA had no need to rely on leaks, because the White House was working overtime to make sure that every word they spoke got lots of attention. A good example of this is the CIA report about those two famous trailers.

"You asked me why none of the reporters have come forward if they knew the info so I guess I would have to say for the same reason they were all in silent, lockdown mode in July 2003 over Swifties."

I know you've acknowledged you got the year wrong, but aside from that your comment still makes no sense. If you want to claim that MSM is liberal, you have a problem explaining why allegedly liberal reporters such as Cooper didn't choose to out Rove pre-election.

I sense an admission of yours that Saddam was a problem that needed to be taken care of. Do you see that virtually every solution you could have imagined to neutralize his danger suffers now from comparison for efficacy with Bush's solution? That is to say, any other solution may not have worked as well.

We certainly differ over the proximity this solution has approached to perfection.
==================================================

Saddam was a problem that had already been substantially "taken care of." He had disarmed, which is ostensibly what most of the fuss was about. So what a darn shame that we've invested 15,000 dead and wounded in order to solve a problem that had already been solved, while turning our attention away from OBL, a problem that definitely has not been solved.

In fact, we've made that problem a lot worse: the war in Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills ... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

So one of our false claims about Iraq (that it was a terrorist training center) has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You should read and understand Charles Duelfer, and Claudia Rosett, to understand that Saddam was not 'substantially' taken care of.

Are you now saying that Saddam should have stayed?

Here's just a little different take on your 'training ground'. It is being noticed in the Arab world and press that the terrorists in Iraq are now mainly killing Muslims. They are easing into the 'now what is up with that' stage. Saddam out means a big dent in the war on terror and your 'training' ground is being turned into the killing fields of radical Islam.
=============================================
=============================================

WHY WAIT UNTIL 2008? THERE IS AN ELECTION IN 2006. I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2006.

LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER"AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY REPLYING AND FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2008 Election Issue!!
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society.They felt they should have aspecial plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in theirown benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
T his is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per monthafter retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
then sit back.....
and see how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people CAN you send this to?
Better yet..... How many people WILL you send this to ?

INTERESTING INFO RE: SOCIAL SECURITY

WHY WAIT UNTIL 2008? THERE IS AN ELECTION IN 2006. I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2006.

LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER"AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY REPLYING AND FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2008 Election Issue!!
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society.They felt they should have aspecial plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in theirown benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
T his is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per monthafter retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
then sit back.....
and see how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people CAN you send this to?
Better yet..... How many people WILL you send this to ?